December 31, 2007
Discuss Monday's editorials
Hunting for truth about hounds
A Virginia study of hound hunting and the conflicts it causes will allow informed debate.
Hunters sometimes are a paranoid bunch. The slightest hint of scrutiny sets them off defending tradition against encroaching modernism. It is therefore no surprise that a Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries review of hunting with hounds has hunters reflexively on the attack.
Read more.
Delay new taxes and fees in NOVA
Collection shouldn't begin until the Virginia Supreme Court rules on a constitutional question.
Will the messy consequences of the transportation package the General Assembly passed during its last session never cease? The legislation authorized the Northern Virginia Regional and Hampton Roads transportation authorities to raise money for roads in those traffic-clogged parts of the state. That meant imposing seven new taxes and fees, effective Jan. 1.
Read more.
Comments
[December 31, 2007 1:29 PM]
Ed S."the conflicts [hound hunting] causes"
"Hunters sometimes are a paranoid bunch."
With statement such as this, is there any wonder why the hunters would be suspicious of such "study"? Why not assume the study would be pre-biased (thus making it a political tool rather than a study).
"Hounds now may run across private property and hunters may enter -- even past posted "No Trespassing" signs -- to retrieve them."
Could the author clarify that VA law states the hounds may enter private propert, and if so, post the applicable law?
Performing a qualified study and understanding the nature and volume of complaints is fine. However the wording of this editorial reveals bias that questionably also lies with those performing the "study".
[December 31, 2007 4:23 PM]
c. trejbalYou can find the hunting regulations here (Warning: It's a 4 mb pdf.)
The passage you are looking for is on page 20 and reads in part:
When the chase begins on other lands, fox hunters and coon hunters may follow their dogs on prohibited lands, and hunters of all other game, when the chase begins on other lands, may go upon prohibited lands to retrieve their dogs, but may not carry firearms or archery tackle on their persons or hunt any game while thereon.
[December 31, 2007 6:28 PM]
Ed S.Thanks, Christian.
It sounds like the law was written in an agreeable manner. While I'm a staunch believer in personal property rights, a hunter retrieving a wandering dog isn't that big of a deal.
If it becomes a common problem, then you're dealing with a hunter who cannot maintain control of his pack, which is another issue entirely, and should be dealt with via other means (which may already be covered by law)...or between landowners. I did note that the passage referred to indicates the hunt shall not continue, only that the dog be retrieved.
[December 31, 2007 7:26 PM]
JohnEd,
Groups such as the Virginia Hunting Dog Alliance are showing their paranoia by arguing that DGIF has no right to make this study and that this will end hound hunting.
Also, you are wrong with your interpretation. Fox and hound hunters can continue their hunt on private land. For other game (such as deer), the hunter only has the right to retrieve the dog without carrying a gun. You say that a hunter retrieving a wandering dog is not a big deal. The problem is that we must rely on the hunter to say he is only retrieving his dog nd not continuing his deer drive (without a gun) through private property. Numerous complaints indicate that there are a substantial number of hunters who are lying about retrieving their dogs.
[January 1, 2008 8:58 AM]
billy bobIf you, as a landowner, are not contacting your game warden with your concerns or problems, how is he/she supposed to enforce our game laws and regulations? If law enforcement is not aware of illegal activity - how are they supposed to stop it? Is it possible that your very legitimate complaints could be resolved merely by working, cooperatively, with your game warden?
This study isn't a cooperative approach. What was supposed to happen is that DGIF was supposed to examine the real issue of some hunters abusing the exception to trespass. They were supposed to come up with a tweak in that exception so that game wardens would be better able to do their jobs.
All the money DGIF are spending on this study, well over $200,000 not including adding more full time desk jockeys in Richmond, is better spent adding game wardens. Adding another layer of bureaucracy does nothing to solve your particular problem. You'll still have problems with illegal hunting - because 1) you don't call your game warden and 2) even if you did, there aren't enough of them. Though that should not stop you from reporting illegal activity. If you're having a problem with true illegal activity, and you don't call law enforcement, I fail to see how your problem is going to be resolved by focus groups. You still have to call your game warden and ask him/her to help. You also need to understand that there are about 225,000 licensed hunters in Virginia according to DGIF. There are about 170,000 hound hunters! and another 25,000 waterfowl & bird hunters using dogs! The VDGIF dispatch center received 906 calls during last hunting season and thus far this season related to hound hunting. Five hundred of those calls related to concerns regarding hunting in roadways and 406 calls were related to trespass/dog retrieval complaints. It is unclear how many of those calls were due to actual infractions or misunderstandings by the callers. How many counties in VA does that include? Divide that by 906. Or 406. Or the 170,000 licensed hunters. Exactly how does VGDIF define a VALID complaint? What if some irate person calls 3 x in one day? or maybe a dozen times in one hunting season? In such a case how many times is it counted? and by the way shouldn't a VALID complaint not be counted as such unless and until it is INVESTIGATED by a game warden and determined to be such? Cale Godfrey stated that there was no such records as to how many complaints the DGIF recieved. 906 complaints is....incredibly suspect, vague,like the DGIF just pulled them outta thin air.
The reason this came about is that a couple of citizens contacted their state reps about some individuals trespassing on their land. Instead of dealing with the game warden - they wanted the exception to trespass ( right to retrieve )revoked. Finally, after the bills were killed, the legislature tasked DGIF with finding out if a regulation needed to be changed.
Somehow, DGIF decided to expand this very narrow issue to encompass the entire commonwealth of virginia and hunting with any type of hound, for any quarry. The people have a right to hunt, fish, and harvest game, subject to such regulations and restrictions as the General Assembly may prescribe by general law. Virginia Constitution, Article XI, section 4
DGIF derives all authority from the legislature, which according to Article 1 Section 2 of the Virginia Constitution is derived from the people. The DGIF Board members all 11 are currently appointed by the Governor and serve"at his pleasure". Only the Governor sets policy for his administration, Governor Kaine has a record of being aggressively anti-gun and pro animal rights!
[January 1, 2008 10:21 AM]
Ed S.John, after your comment I re-read the passage that Christian posted, and see where it can be interpreted differently. The wording is clear as mud. ;)
And I may not have been clear with my original post. An occasional hunter retrieving a dog is not a big deal (to me; another landowner may feel differently). If the same hunter, or hunters from the same tract of land, make it a common occurence, then it becomes obvious they are careless or do not have control of their pack. Perhaps that is the case here.
My only beef was with how the article was written in support of the study, with apparent bias against the hunters. I don't have a dog in this fight, other than observing to see if the government railroads the citizenry